Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Ker) 1061

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, C.S. SUDHA, JJ.
Premachandran, S/o. Sreedharan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala and Anr. – Respondents
Crl. Appeal No.1351 of 2018
Decided On : 08-06-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : K.K. Rajeev.
For the Respondents: Government Pleader, Smt. Sheeba Thomas, P.P., Smt. Ambika Devi S., Spl. G.P.

Insanity defense requires clear evidence of incapacity to understand the act or its wrongfulness; mere claims of mental illness are insufficient to negate criminal responsibility.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 383 - Conviction for murder - Accused intentionally hacked mother to death due to enmity arising from property disputes. Evidence included testimonies of family members and forensic details confirming numerous fatal injuries. Mental illness defense not substantiated; lack of proof that accused was unaware of act or its wrongfulness. (Paras 1, 6, 28, 41)

(B) Insanity Defense - Legal implications of mental illness - Accused's mental state examined, but evidence insufficient to prove incapacity to understand the nature of his actions at the time of the crime. Testimonies indicated awareness and premeditation. (Paras 37, 42)

Facts of the case:
The accused, in a fit of rage tied to family property disputes, brutally murdered his mother with a weapon. Family dynamics and previous incidents of violence emphasized in testimonies. Accused claimed long-standing mental illness but did not prove incapacity during the incident. The offense occurred on 23/10/2015. (Paras 1-4, 12)

Findings of Court:
The trial court found the accused guilty of murder, citing strong evidence, including eyewitness testimonies, forensic examination, and the nature of the crime indicating intent. Sentence of life imprisonment affirmed. (Paras 6, 42)

Issues: The key legal questions involved whether the conviction was sustainable given the evidence of mental illness and whether the accused could discern right from wrong at the time of the murder. (Paras 8, 31)

Ratio Decidendi: Court held that mere claims of mental illness do not absolve criminal liability; the evidence showed the accused comprehended his actions. The conviction was supported by both direct and circumstantial evidence. (Paras 41, 42)

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. Sudha, J.

This jail appeal under Section 383 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused in S.C.No.375/2016 on the file of the Court of Session, Mavelikkara, challenging the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

2. The prosecution case as stated in the charge sheet is as follows - The accused was in inimical terms with Bhasurangi, his mother, due to the disputes relating to the partition of their family property and as she had filed a case against the accused and obtained an order evicting him from her house. Due to this enmity, the accused with the intention of murdering her, on 23/10/2015 at 6 a.m., hacked her twice with an axe on the back of her head and below the neck, because of which her neck was severed from her body, resulting in her death. The incident took place near the well situated in the compound of her house bearing No.282 situated in Ward No.VI, Alam Panchayat. Hence the accused is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under the above-mentioned Section.

3. Based on Ext.P1 FIS of PW1, Crime No. 2626/2015, Chengannur Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was registered, i.e., Ext.P18 FIR, by PW14, Junior Sub Inspector of the aforesaid Station. PWs.13 and 14 are the investigating officers in this case. PW14 verified the investigation conducted by PW13 and submitted the charge sheet before the court.

4. On the final report being submitted, the jurisdictional Magistrate, after complying with the statutory formalities, committed the case against the accused to the Sessions Court concerned, which court took the case on file as S.C.No.375/2016. On the appearance of the accused before the Court of Session, he was furnished with copies of all the prosecution records. On 08/06/2017, the trial court framed a charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, which was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14 and got marked Exts.P1 to P18 and MO1 to MO4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence.

5. As the Sessions Court did not find it a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 Cr.P.C., he was asked to enter on his defence and adduce evidence in support thereof. DW1 to DW3 were examined and Exts.D3 and D4 were marked on behalf of the accused. Exts.D1 and D2 are the contradictions brought out in the testimony of PWs.1 and 2.

6. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court by the impugned judgment found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and hence sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to a fine of ₹10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. It was held that in the event of an order under Section 433A Cr.P.C. by the competent authority, the accused would be entitled to set off for the period from 23/10/2015 to 18/05/2018, the period during which he was under detention pending investigation, inquiry, and trial in the case.

7. In the appeal memorandum, it is alleged that the impugned judgment is based on assumptions and presumptions. The court below failed to consider the mental illness of the appellant/accused though he had taken up a defence under Section 84 IPC. Due to his mental illness, the appellant had no mens rea, which element, the prosecution was bound to prove. The evidence on record shows that the accused had been suffering from mental illness for quite a long time and that he had undergone treatment at various hospitals. Due to his mental illness, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act done by him or what he was doing, was either wrong or contrary to law